Author
Topic: Isn't abortion the kindest thing one can do for another being? (Read 30064 times)

Assuming god is going to burn you in hell for performing abortion or getting an abortion. If done for the right reason isn't abortion about the highest selfless act a human can be involved in.

If am religious and a firm believer in god and I decide to abort a fetus knowing full well I will receive ultimate punishment a sacrafice that rivals or surpasses that of jesus's time on the cross. By aborting a fetus I give a soul a one way pass to heaven, that being need ever risk hell for some transgression like the crime of not believing. So in essence I sacrifice my everlasting soul so that a human need never risk ultimate suffering.

An abortion doctor who does this save 10's of thousands of souls in his lifetime.

Well I disagree with the absoluteness of your comment, women are the only ones with a choice, 1 deciding to have sex, deciding to not use enough birth control, and finally the ultimate choice of continuation of the pregnancy (well that is excluding rape. You say women do not like it. I agree at the basest level with that comment, yes very few women like to spend several hundred dollars sit with their legs spread to have an unwanted pregnancy is medically terminated. But there are many women who use this as a form of birth control, they for what ever reason are recidivist abortion recipients. Since there are alternatives i would say in some way they bring it on themselves. Of course I do not have a problem with them choosing this route I would not exactly say that all women have no choice. In essence the serial abortion recipient chose to become pregnant through either willful ignorance or neglect. BTW i am not putting this all on women or bashing them in any way if it appears as if I am then I am misunderstood.

Having sex is usually a mutual decision, but Men's choice really goes out the door after they ejaculate, every choice after that really resides with the woman.

Religious people feel that a zygot is a fully vested child, so killing it is no more a choice than killing your 1 month old because it is keeping you up at night or costing you more than you expected. I understand their postion but I happen to simply disagree with it.

Of course I argue that it is not a fully vested child as is evidenced by the different treatment of it. A religious person would likely shun a woman who chopped up her 3 children while they slept, but a woman who has 3 abortions will still be able to sit across the table from them and or babysit their children. The religious obviously put more value on a post vaginal child than one in utero.

But back to the thread topic.

Do you think that a person who risks hell in order to save souls makes the ultimate sacrifice in the eyes of god. Since that sacrifice is made selflessly and is for eternity that it may rival that of the lamb of God. That by sacrificing their eternal souls to insure another life does not risk suffering hardship and ultimate hell fire they are hero's

Abortions are mainly used for risky pregnancies; not as a substitute for contraception.

On-topic:Yes, according to religious beliefs, abortions save souls from hellfire. However, you might notice theists don't usually apply logic to their religious beliefs. If they did, they wouldn't be theists.

But in the fundy's mind (and, honestly, I can sort of see the POV despite not believing in the mythology behind it), god should be the one to choose whether or not a fertilized egg results in a child. He, of course, has a "plan", wherein he can cause a spontaneous miscarriage (often to the heartbreak of a couple who had desperately wanted children), but on the other hand, the child who was supposed to have multiple birth defects and be born into a life of hopeless poverty might, very occasionally, overcome the odds and become someone of great stature. Or, at least, someone who is loved and manages to live a fulfilling life. It's a difficult question, really. I'm definitely pro-choice, but it's an argument for which I can really sympathize with the beliefs and emotions on the opposite side.

<snip>...But there are many women who use this as a form of birth control...<snip>

This. This is what seriously infuriates me about 'the abortion debate', that a woman would use abortion as a form of contraception. Although it has never happened to me, I simply cannot think of a more heart wrenching descision I would have to make if I were in that situation. It is NOT a simple procedure, it is invasive, and extremely traumatic. I get the strong feeling that there are ignorant people out there who believe that a woman will flippantly get an abortion in between doing some shopping and getting her hair done. Epidemic, you are being willfully ignorant and callous if you believe this to be the truth.

Logged

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

But in the fundy's mind (and, honestly, I can sort of see the POV despite not believing in the mythology behind it), god should be the one to choose whether or not a fertilized egg results in a child. He, of course, has a "plan", wherein he can cause a spontaneous miscarriage (often to the heartbreak of a couple who had desperately wanted children), but on the other hand, the child who was supposed to have multiple birth defects and be born into a life of hopeless poverty might, very occasionally, overcome the odds and become someone of great stature. Or, at least, someone who is loved and manages to live a fulfilling life. It's a difficult question, really. I'm definitely pro-choice, but it's an argument for which I can really sympathize with the beliefs and emotions on the opposite side.

It would still be part of yahweh's plan, no? If yahweh wanted a person alive wouldnt they simply survive the abortion?

I get the strong feeling that there are ignorant people out there who believe that a woman will flippantly get an abortion in between doing some shopping and getting her hair done.

I think the point about using abortion as birth control is that it is used when there is no case of rape, incest or some highly damaging birth defect. It would be a situation where it is not necessary to the health of the woman to have it done. A woman gets pregnant, does not want to have a baby for any of a variety of reasons, so she has an abortion.

That does happen. And I am totally fine with that. I do not think it is done flippantly, but even if it is, I am totally fine with that. I understand, though, that is not everyone's experience.

I think the whole argument of the pro-choice side is that you have a right to have something - anything - that is in your body, removed. The rights of the thing inside your body do not trump your sovereignty over your own body.

As for yhwh and his plans, why does the forced-birth crowd assume the abortion is not part of his plan? Why do they assume yhwh is not acting through the doctors who are performing these procedures? Seems arrogant and self-righteous to me.

I'm definitely pro-choice, but it's an argument for which I can really sympathize with the beliefs and emotions on the opposite side.

I can not understand your position. Personally I feel that no one is harmed beyond the decisons maker. To me a human is more than a DNA sequence, a human is a mind, with thoughts, dreams, desires, needs, wants and a sense of future/past. I could care less if you terminate something prior to it having a cerebral cortex. Yes it had the potential of possibly one day inventing interstellar travel or cure for cancer but I could say that every unrealized egg and sperm had the same potential and every cell in your body could be used to create another life with the same potential. My only concern in this world is do my actions impact a sentient being.

<snip>...But there are many women who use this as a form of birth control...<snip>

This. This is what seriously infuriates me about 'the abortion debate', that a woman would use abortion as a form of contraception. Although it has never happened to me, I simply cannot think of a more heart wrenching descision I would have to make if I were in that situation. It is NOT a simple procedure, it is invasive, and extremely traumatic. I get the strong feeling that there are ignorant people out there who believe that a woman will flippantly get an abortion in between doing some shopping and getting her hair done. Epidemic, you are being willfully ignorant and callous if you believe this to be the truth.

I by no means claim that there are not challenges to abortion, it is an invasive proceedure with real mental/physical health consequences. (side note abortion is statistically safer than child birth). But the knowledge of the source of pregnancy is pretty well established and there most certainly are women who are serial abortion recipients. I don't think the women do it for the fun of it, but there are alternatives to pregnancy.

But I also have absoluetly no problem killing a lump of cells with no brain. with out anthropomorphizing the glob of cells you can not show anyone is harmed by abortion. People often try to personalize it with statements like "how would you feel if your mom and terminated you?" I simply say I would not care because I never would have had the ability to think about it.

Jesus, America scares me more and more and I don't envy the numerous sane Americans who have to put up with this kind of s**t. Having said that, I am not too surprised, I mean the West Memphis 3 happened. This kind of thing kinda makes it more infuriating when people dismiss 'evidence' as being something fictional, made-up, something that's a matter of opinion, because when applied to the real world it can be dangerous. Like in the URL they connected the death of the unborn child to a cocaine habit, without any evidence to support that was the cause of death. All they had evidence for was a drug addiction and that should have been her only convinction, surely?

« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 06:05:56 PM by Seppuku »

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Assuming god is going to burn you in hell for performing abortion or getting an abortion. If done for the right reason isn't abortion about the highest selfless act a human can be involved in.

It's good, but its not the best. Normally you will only "save" one or two souls.

Far better, surely, to tour the hospitals of the world and chuck a grenade into that little room where all the new-borns are lined up for people to view (unless that's just in old sit-coms). Each time you do that, you push a dozen or more straight to heaven.

I've yet to have any believer explain why this act would not be in the children's best interests, nor why the believer parents should not on balance be happy. Sure - they lose a child in this insignificant mortal life, but they will be reunited with it in heaven, guaranteed, for ever. With no risk that child might become an atheist and get hit by a bus and spend eternity in hell.

Surely its a win win all round? 'cept for me, of course, as I'll go to hell as the grenade-chucker. But if doing what I do leads to so much good and happiness for so many people, will I really be punished for it?

- - - - -DISCLAIMER FOR THE HARD OF THINKING. I do not believe in an afterlife. Therefore the logic of this argument fails for me. I am NOT about to go off chucking grenades at babies!

But the knowledge of the source of pregnancy is pretty well established and there most certainly are women who are serial abortion recipients.

Do you have any source for this claim, epidemic? It's one I've heard anti-choicers (which I don't think you are, for the record) make before. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that they were just talking out of their asses. What can actually be documented about these serial aborters?

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

If am religious and a firm believer in god and I decide to abort a fetus knowing full well I will receive ultimate punishment a sacrafice that rivals or surpasses that of jesus's time on the cross.

Absolutely fascinating question. Since it involves disobeying one of the ten commandments, probably no obsequious believer will muster the courage to publicly endorse it as a good thing - they can't be seen to support it and thereby be complicit. But wait, if somebody else (say an atheist) wants to abort heaps of fetuses (thereby sending themselves to hell) why would anyone who believes in god and heaven object (beyond token disapproval) to the fresh little souls flying straight home to eternal toe-sucking duty in heaven?

The point about it surpassing Jesus is awesome - it sure does because the sacrifice would be real Jesus knew full well that death on the cross was very temporary and soon all his goodly Godly powers (e.g. flying like superman) would be restored.

If am religious and a firm believer in god and I decide to abort a fetus knowing full well I will receive ultimate punishment a sacrafice that rivals or surpasses that of jesus's time on the cross.

Absolutely fascinating question. Since it involves disobeying one of the ten commandments, probably no obsequious believer will muster the courage to publicly endorse it as a good thing - they can't be seen to support it and thereby be complicit. But wait, if somebody else (say an atheist) wants to abort heaps of fetuses (thereby sending themselves to hell) why would anyone who believes in god and heaven object (beyond token disapproval) to the fresh little souls flying straight home to eternal toe-sucking duty in heaven?

The point about it surpassing Jesus is awesome - it sure does because the sacrifice would be real Jesus knew full well that death on the cross was very temporary and soon all his goodly Godly powers (e.g. flying like superman) would be restored.

The more one thinks about Christianity the more bizarre it becomes

Exactly. Jesus new there was no risk. Humans no matter how religious always have room to question at the very least where they are going upstairs or down. Could you imagine just as you save a baby, a nun and a priest from a burning building and as you go back to check for others a roof beem lands on your legs burning you slowly alive and a thought slips into you mind I wonder if god is real and at that moment you croak.

Isn't there some other weird "rule" about how the only unforgivable sin is to "deny the Holy Spirit"? And has anyone here EVER gotten a coherent explanation of just WTF the Holy Spirit actually IS? Followed by, how does one go about denying it?

Allowing for some flexibility on the definition of coherent doesn't help as much as you might think it would - I can get a coherent explanation of what Jesus is (ridiculous perhaps, but I can make sense of the gist of it), and the same goes for "God", providing I'm willing to take the time to drag it out of every individual believer I encounter (insert same paranthetic observation as above).

But the Holy Spirit? Seriously, what's the deal there? And why is "denying" it (whatever that means) the single most awful sin that can possibly be committed? With so many to choose from, why this as Numero Uno Very Worst Bad Thing For Which You Must Burn For Eternity?

I'm going to give myself a headache if I try to make sense of this...and I'm off-topic as well. I best get back to writing that damned essay I'm avoiding and studying for a final.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Ahh, another abortion thread. I agree with the OP that if a person really believed in heaven and all that, they should become abortion providers and help send as many pre-born souls there as they can.....

If a fertile woman is having hetero sex on a regular basis, even as seldom as a few times a month, she will probably get pregnant, if she (and her partner) is not using a consistent form of contraception. Most of the time, she should not have the baby just because she becomes pregnant. But most of the time, she will.

The vast majority of women (60%) never have an abortion in their lives--they have babies instead. Most women I know who have had abortions have had one.[1] I have known of a few women (really messed up women on drugs, having random anonymous unprotected sex) having up to three abortions during their most messed-up years--mainly teens and 20's. I don't know if that would be considered having "serial abortions" considering that there are about 12 times a year that a woman can get pregnant, and a woman is fertile for about 35 years.[2] Ironically, the sex workers I have known--even the drug users--who had sex way more often and with more men than most women do, were some of the most responsible about birth control and seldom ended up needing abortions.

If there are women in the US using abortion as a form of birth control (having 5, 6, 7 or more abortions) that would be pretty rare. In the old Soviet Union when women could not get birth control, it was common for a married woman to have 3 or 4 kids, 3 or 4 miscarriages, and ten or more abortions. That is nearly 20 pregnancies! Pretty extreme, and horrendous for a woman's body and emotional state. Few women would do that if there were other options.

Final point. Any woman who does have other options, but is so messed up mentally as to have three or more abortions, should not under any circumstances be encouraged to give birth to a child. She will be counseled by the abortion clinic (the staff tears their hair out over such women) and given as much birth control as she needs.

But if she still can't or won't use it, as a former social worker, I would recommend that she should keep on getting those abortions. At least that way she is only hurting herself. Anyone who really cares about babies and children would agree with me here.

More women probably should have abortions instead of children, but that is a personal opinion that I never shared with clients...I only counseled a reluctant woman to have an abortion once--her abusive husband had set her on fire and she found out she was pregnant while in the hospital geting skin grafts. Most of the time I tried to help women find other options, because they did not want to have an abortion.

Abortion Facts courtesy of Guttmacher Institute and Jag's forced nosiness into other people's sex lives for a whole semester:* Viability – * no state permits unrestricted abortion past 24 weeks* survival rate of premature infants: • 2% of babies born at 22 weeks • 19% of babies born at 23 weeks • 40% of babies born at 24 weeks • 66% of babies born at 25 weeks • 77% of babies born at 26 weeks

* Abortion rate percentages by date:• 61.8% before 9 weeks• 17.1% weeks 9-10• 9.1% weeks 11-12* This accounts for 88% of all abortions performed in the US, long before the fetus has any chance of survival outside the womb if miscarriage occurs instead• 6.6% weeks13-15• 3.8% weeks 16-20 • Only 1.5% during week 21 or later• Banned in all states past 24 weeks unless rape of life of mother exemption applies

I've gathered a huge amount of data and statistics on this topic. If we're really going to discuss this again, I'm prepared to post every last bit of it. To be clear to everyone, that's not meant as a threat, it's more like a warning

Edit: there is no significance to the occasional *; something went screwy when I posted and I went for the easy fix.

As screwtape has indicated that I should go ahead and data dump, keep an eye out in the next day or so. I just finished another final - school will be easier for the next few weeks, as I'm down to one class now. I can take the time to get the information into a coherent format and post it for posterity.

Stay tuned.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Well I disagree with the absoluteness of your comment, women are the only ones with a choice, 1 deciding to have sex, deciding to not use enough birth control, and finally the ultimate choice of continuation of the pregnancy (well that is excluding rape.

Yes, because men only think with their reproductive organs and don't have the choice whether to engage in sex or not and don't have the choice to use birth control. Excuse my sarcasm, but I did find your statement to be fairly offensive, even if it was unthinkingly so. One of the problems with society in general is that it assumes that men are pretty much just like the stereotype I sarcastically described, and thus women are the ones who have to refuse sex and have to use birth control, not to mention they tend to get blamed for getting pregnant (especially among religious people).